AMD Ryzen Gets Delidded - And It Is a Tricky Thing to Do

We mentioned in our reviews that you should not delid AMD Ryzen processors for the sheer fact that even the heatspreader has sensors and that it is soldered. Next to that AMD did the cooling part rather well so the benefits of a lower temperatures versus the risk of bricking that processor might not be worth it.

Well, that thesis has been confirmed, pro-overclocker der8auer took a Ryzen 7 1700 (well actually multiple of them) and delidded Ryzen 7 to see what was hiding behind the Integrated Heatspreader (IHS). It took der8auer multiple attemempts to get a succesful delidded processor. To be more precise, it actually it took him three processors hence we can already conclude that the process is very risky.

In the end he succeeded though, in the photos below (clock thumbnails) you can see a Ryzen 7 1700 CPU delidded. You will notice a solder layer that ties directly to the IHS. Looking att he processor you can see multiple capacitors, all nicely covered by some sort of silicone protective layer, so AMD certainly went all the way here.

So what weas the end-reult delidding and cooling ? Well, der8auer shows it in a video, but the he achieved a drop of 2 degrees C lower on overall temperatures with a cooler sitting directly on top of the processor die. In short, and what we have been saying. Please do not delid the processor guys, chances are high you'll damage it and the temperature drop certainly doiesn't justify you bricking the processor or loosing warranty.

Microsoft Windows Bug Is Holding Back AMD Ryzen - 03/10/2017 09:44 AM
We've been adressing the topic widely in our reviews, it makes little sense for Ryzen processors that are that powerful to not perform as well in games in CPU bound situations. Microsoft now sends wo...

Review: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor - 03/06/2017 09:34 AM
In this review we take a look at a new Ryzen series processor from AMD. We peek at the Ryzen 7 1800X, a 499 USD processor that has eight cores and 16 threads (SMT). The 8-core processor will be tested...

Review: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X processor - 03/03/2017 02:44 PM
We tested the Flagship processor, now we review the Ryzen 7 1700X Processor that is a 100 bucks cheaper. The 8-core processor will be tested on an X370 motherboard. Read the review here....

Corsair is Ready for AMD Ryzen - 02/28/2017 09:35 PM
Corsair today announced its extensive compatibility for the groundbreaking new range of AMD Ryzen processors and the AM4 platform. With a completely new CPU architecture, chipset and CPU socket, AM...

#5404703 Posted on: 03/10/2017 11:19 AM
So AMD has done it right in a $300 CPU, while Intel hasn't done it right in 4(?) generations of CPU's now. Broadwell-E processors are better, but still not good enough.

I'm more and more baffled how AMD can offer a CPU with this performance for this price with proper build quality like this as well. Is AMD simply selling these first gen Ryzen CPU's at a ridiculous low price to regain market without making a lot of profit, or is Intel really that overpriced?

Maybe a combination of both.

Variac
Junior Member

Posts: 18
Joined: 2003-12-15

#5404719 Posted on: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM
If all of the capacitor are covered on a silicon layer they would be all shorted together (and everything to GND I suppose).

Maybe you wanted to say silicone.

Neo Cyrus
Senior Member

Posts: 8794
Joined: 2006-02-14

#5404720 Posted on: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM
So AMD has done it right in a $300 CPU, while Intel hasn't done it right in 4(?) generations of CPU's now. Broadwell-E processors are better, but still not good enough.

I'm more and more baffled how AMD can offer a CPU with this performance for this price with proper build quality like this as well. Is AMD simply selling these first gen Ryzen CPU's at a ridiculous low price to regain market without making a lot of profit, or is Intel really that overpriced?

Maybe a combination of both.
Intel is really that overpriced. It was a literal monopoly on the high end segment for 11 years. AMD are definitely making a good amount of profit.

As for Intel not soldering their chips, their fans made all the excuses in the world including an article explaining that it would cause micro cracks to the die. Most people completely gobbled that **** up and took it as gospel, believing that the almighty Intel is right yet again. Don't believe those exaggerations, as if micro cracks form spontaneously and instantly the moment you use your CPU and are magically going to kill your CPU. AMD is pretty much proof Intel was lying straight out of their asses again, as usual, as expected.

CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member

Posts: 7443
Joined: 2008-01-06

#5404726 Posted on: 03/10/2017 11:42 AM
So AMD has done it right in a $300 CPU, while Intel hasn't done it right in 4(?) generations of CPU's now. Broadwell-E processors are better, but still not good enough.

I'm more and more baffled how AMD can offer a CPU with this performance for this price with proper build quality like this as well. Is AMD simply selling these first gen Ryzen CPU's at a ridiculous low price to regain market without making a lot of profit, or is Intel really that overpriced?

Maybe a combination of both.

Possibly AMD just wanted to drop these CPU's on the market at this price to regain marketshare. I strongly believe this, I reckon they are making very little on each chip sold and even less on the higher versions too as more time would be put into binning them.

Makes sense, drop these chips now at a great price and make a huge impact on the market, which it really has done. Then in a few months drop the 6c/12t CPU's at a good price point so to make more money on them but still not a lot. Then release the 4c/8t CPU's at high clock speeds and low TDP which I believe they will be making the most money on.

It was a great idea by AMD to out source the chipset to a different company as I dont believe they have the infrastructure to create both architecture and chipset at the same time. But hopefully with as successful as this launch has been and the marketshare they will claw back I hope this will change and AMD can pour some of this money into R&D.

Its not really how much money you make, its how much buzz you create. Which increases market share, which creates decent price margins, Which pleases shareholders, Which increases share prices, Which attracts more investors, Which attracts developers, Which means the company has more money at its disposal.

Unilythe
Member

Posts: 63
Joined: 2016-08-22

#5404734 Posted on: 03/10/2017 11:48 AM
Intel is really that overpriced. It was a literal monopoly on the high end segment for 11 years. AMD are definitely making a good amount of profit.

As for Intel not soldering their chips, their fans made all the excuses in the world including an article explaining that it would cause micro cracks to the die. Most people completely gobbled that **** up and took it as gospel, believing that the almighty Intel is right yet again. Don't believe those exaggerations, as if micro cracks form spontaneously and instantly the moment you use your CPU and are magically going to kill your CPU. AMD is pretty much proof Intel was lying straight out of their asses again, as usual, as expected.

It is true that there are some serious issues with soldering the die to the IHS. of course it's possible, but to do it right is tedious and expensive, because of differing thermal expansion for different materials. Using just one type of metal will definitely damage the die because of the pressure caused by the differing expansions, so the techniques used for soldering requires many different layered and mixed metals, some of which very expensive.

This problem becomes bigger as the dies become smaller, too.

Neo Cyrus
Senior Member

Posts: 8794
Joined: 2006-02-14

#5404741 Posted on: 03/10/2017 12:03 PM
It is true that there are some serious issues with soldering the die to the IHS. of course it's possible, but to do it right is tedious and expensive, because of differing thermal expansion for different materials. Using just one type of metal will definitely damage the die because of the pressure caused by the differing expansions, so the techniques used for soldering requires many different layered and mixed metals, some of which very expensive.

This problem becomes bigger as the dies become smaller, too.
I'm aware. They've long been using different layers for different reasons, probably from the start. That's never been a real issue, it's just something Intel like removing to cut costs on. AMD aren't using indium on their dies for fun, that stuff ain't free.

Edit: How could I forget that part of the reason for using indium is to use gold. The gold probably costs more than the indium.

icedman
Senior Member

Posts: 726
Joined: 2013-02-22

#5404782 Posted on: 03/10/2017 01:29 PM
Good to see solder under the hood again, and I'm surprised they're using a dual die setup like my old q6600 which I delidded really easily using the vice method to practice befor doing my current 3770k.

Kaarme
Senior Member

Posts: 1089
Joined: 2013-03-10

#5404783 Posted on: 03/10/2017 01:36 PM

I'm more and more baffled how AMD can offer a CPU with this performance for this price with proper build quality like this as well. Is AMD simply selling these first gen Ryzen CPU's at a ridiculous low price to regain market without making a lot of profit, or is Intel really that overpriced?

Intel's CPUs have less transistors than an average GPU. However, GPUs aren't sold alone to consumers, they always come with the whole video card consisting of the GPU, fast memory, regulators, PCB, cooling element and fans, backplate, connectors, in a big box. Yet that whole packet costs the same or less than the Intel CPU with less transistors. Somehow AMD and Nvidia still make profit even out of the mainstream GPUs.

For example, the AMD 380X GPU, Tonga, has 5 billion transistors. Intel i7 6700k has 1.75 billion. A 380X video card with 4GB of memory had a launch price of 229 dollars. The i7 6700k CPU alone had a launch price of 350 dollars (alright, it might come with a 5 dollars cooler, I'm not sure)!

Does this make sense to you? Intel gains incomprehensible profit from every single CPU it sells, especially the more expensive types.

Mufflore
Senior Member

Posts: 10630
Joined: 2010-05-22

#5404796 Posted on: 03/10/2017 02:00 PM
So AMD has done it right in a $300 CPU, while Intel hasn't done it right in 4(?) generations of CPU's now. Broadwell-E processors are better, but still not good enough.

I'm more and more baffled how AMD can offer a CPU with this performance for this price with proper build quality like this as well. Is AMD simply selling these first gen Ryzen CPU's at a ridiculous low price to regain market without making a lot of profit, or is Intel really that overpriced?

Maybe a combination of both.

The problem is that AMD couldnt do it right so were forced to compensate with a soldered die lid to get the clock speed up.
If they didnt do this they would fall short of 4GHz which would reduce sales substantially.
They would have had far more variability making the standard base + boost clocks much lower as well.

Variac
Junior Member

Posts: 18
Joined: 2003-12-15

#5404828 Posted on: 03/10/2017 03:05 PM
Intel's CPUs have less transistors than an average GPU. However, GPUs aren't sold alone to consumers, they always come with the whole video card consisting of the GPU, fast memory, regulators, PCB, cooling element and fans, backplate, connectors, in a big box. Yet that whole packet costs the same or less than the Intel CPU with less transistors. Somehow AMD and Nvidia still make profit even out of the mainstream GPUs.

For example, the AMD 380X GPU, Tonga, has 5 billion transistors. Intel i7 6700k has 1.75 billion. A 380X video card with 4GB of memory had a launch price of 229 dollars. The i7 6700k CPU alone had a launch price of 350 dollars (alright, it might come with a 5 dollars cooler, I'm not sure)!

Does this make sense to you? Intel gains incomprehensible profit from every single CPU it sells, especially the more expensive types.

I agree that Intel has a high profit, but that's not a proper way to do a comparison and prove it.

#5404877 Posted on: 03/10/2017 04:44 PM
I'm more and more baffled how AMD can offer a CPU with this performance for this price with proper build quality like this as well. Is AMD simply selling these first gen Ryzen CPU's at a ridiculous low price to regain market without making a lot of profit, or is Intel really that overpriced?

Maybe a combination of both.
No, it's really just Intel being overpriced and nothing else. When you consider their net income lately seems to average around $11 billion per year, clearly, they price things much higher than they need to.

Also consider this: GPUs tend to have more transistors and more FLOPs than the average CPU and are soldered to a daughterboard along with RAM, and they still end up being cheaper than what Intel offers.

You can also take a look at the Arduino Gallileo, which costs more than the average ARM-based development board while being less than half as powerful.

Denial
Senior Member

Posts: 11310
Joined: 2004-05-16

#5404885 Posted on: 03/10/2017 05:00 PM
No, it's really just Intel being overpriced and nothing else. When you consider their net income lately seems to average around $11 billion per year, clearly, they price things much higher than they need to.

Also consider this: GPUs tend to have more transistors and more FLOPs than the average CPU and are soldered to a daughterboard along with RAM, and they still end up being cheaper than what Intel offers.

You can also take a look at the Arduino Gallileo, which costs more than the average ARM-based development board while being less than half as powerful.

The R&D budget for a CPU is like 10x the cost of a GPU because the entire layout is done by hand where as a GPU is almost entirely synthesized.

Does Intel charge a premium on it's 4+ core designs? Yeah - but the market was clearly willing to pay for it and for the vast majority of people, Intel's mainstream with significantly cheaper parts are more than enough.

I don't see the issue with them charging a premium but I am glad that AMD is competing to a degree where that premium is being effected.

Kaarme
Senior Member

Posts: 1089
Joined: 2013-03-10

#5404892 Posted on: 03/10/2017 05:10 PM

I agree that Intel has a high profit, but that's not a proper way to do a comparison and prove it.

Then what is?

The R&D budget for a CPU is like 10x the cost of a GPU because the entire layout is done by hand where as a GPU is almost entirely synthesized.

I certainly can't see the results of Intel's R&D... So little has changed for so many generations now. They even got stuck at 14nm.

Besides, Intel makes that 10 billion a year profit after expenses, including that R&D, have been deducted already.